I think what you said here doesn't sound social last. From what I understand social last as, it feels sort of like you have a sort of blindness to wider community, which makes you make social blunders whether you want to or not. So Sx/Sp being syn-flow would make the mistake and possibly feel guilty / shame about it if they recognise it, whereas Sp/Sx would give less of a fuck. The bit in your spoiler actually made me think so/sx (taking your sexuality --->> expressing it in society in a way that doesn't make others uncomfortable). And I think Sx/So has the same sort of "don't give a fuck" attitude to Sx as Sp/Sx and the difference is in their awareness of its affect on society so probably not that.[/spoiler]

Mrrrmaid <3 Thanks! That could be the case, I might not be social-last, then. But maybe I should explain some things about that...

Up until about a year ago, I really didn't even see or care that I was making people so uncomfortable with my self-presentation, I didn't see what could be wrong with it. Lots of people harassed me, made fun of me, and even my friends complained...and it did sting, a little bit...but it didn't make me nearly as uncomfortable as censoring my self expression did, so I just kept "flaunting it", until I had my moral epiphany :

I still want to present that way...but I've stopped for moral and practical reasons. I've realized how negative of an affect it tends to have on others, so I think it's a jerky thing to do if you're aware of that but you still do it anyway - Sort of like not showering for weeks, and then sitting on a crowded subway and stinking up the place, and not caring how anyone else feels about it. lol.

Also, it really is hard to find a boyfriend who truly loves you for you, if you're shoving sexuality in his face 24/7. Like it's hard for them to even judge, their hormones just take control and they'll think they love you regardless (or they'll just lie, to get it). I want a good relationship. One day when I'm married, I can dress the way I'd really like to, around him at least, and I won't have to restrict myself quite as much.

But like I mentioned, I do have some discomfort around other people's responses to me...and it is hard to tell if it's Instinctual-based, or just a part of having Fe in the ego! Haha

Sx/Sp or So/Sx, hmm thank you I'll 'try on' the So/Sx typing for a while and see how it feels...it's possible.

I'm "emotionally invested" in the truth and the typology.
To type I take into account IR effects, the theory and my experience of watching people of different types.
It's the main in the situation.

I relate similarly to others too. For example, Chae got my criticism about claiming as Fi type and then had brains enough to agree with me.
Also Delilah's issues I notice good due to IR, she provoked by being inadequately rude, meanwhile being weird she claims to be my holy dual (semidual earlier) lol

Mrrrmaid <3 Thanks! That could be the case, I might not be social-last, then. But maybe I should explain some things about that...

Up until about a year ago, I really didn't even see or care that I was making people so uncomfortable with my self-presentation, I didn't see what could be wrong with it. Lots of people harassed me, made fun of me, and even my friends complained...and it did sting, a little bit...but it didn't make me nearly as uncomfortable as censoring my self expression did, so I just kept "flaunting it", until I had my moral epiphany :

I still want to present that way...but I've stopped for moral and practical reasons. I've realized how negative of an affect it tends to have on others, so I think it's a jerky thing to do if you're aware of that but you still do it anyway - Sort of like not showering for weeks, and then sitting on a crowded subway and stinking up the place, and not caring how anyone else feels about it. lol.

Also, it really is hard to find a boyfriend who truly loves you for you, if you're shoving sexuality in his face 24/7. Like it's hard for them to even judge, their hormones just take control and they'll think they love you regardless (or they'll just lie, to get it). I want a good relationship. One day when I'm married, I can dress the way I'd really like to, around him at least, and I won't have to restrict myself quite as much.

But like I mentioned, I do have some discomfort around other people's responses to me...and it is hard to tell if it's Instinctual-based, or just a part of having Fe in the ego! Haha

Sx/Sp or So/Sx, hmm thank you I'll 'try on' the So/Sx typing for a while and see how it feels...it's possible.

hahah okay wait this sounds more like Sx/Sp with Fe maybe

my official vote is not sx last either way

"I take back like half of the exclamation points.....they make me look....eager to please. Which I AM....but I don't want anyone to KNOW that"
- Carrie Fisher

I think I may relate to what you are trying to say. Do you mind going into more detail? Only as much as you are comfortable with.

Okie dokie, I tried not to make it TMI, but it is kinda NSFW:

I like dressing in overtly sexual clothes, designing them according to my taste in aesthetics, making them, and wearing them. It makes me feel more alive, invigorated, motivated, and happy. I care more about having a good sex life with the right partner, than anything else, it's never far from my mind, so it's most natural to dress in accordance.

I'd probably really enjoy having sex in front of a crowd, the idea actually feels energizing. Or 'performing' in front of a crowd like a Burlesque dancer or something! Designing the clothes and dance according to my tastes. It'd feel good to know my self expression had a powerful impact on other people...

I guess maybe I'm overly fixated on sex Aha! Regardless of where Sx is in my instinctual stack...

Edit: @Venus Rose go ahead and read my last reply to mrrrmaid too, if you want, it has more

@Xaviay this is just based on superficial impressions, so I may be wrong, but how do you feel about SX in the secondary position (So/Sx)? You seem to approach it in a much more playful and not so neurotic, way. And your concerns about seem to be in the social realm.

Well thank you! I feel pretty neurotic about it lol, but I don't wanna go into any more detail. You and @mrrrmaid got me considering So/Sx though, thanks I'll think about it for a while

You are lieing again. What should be natural for you. And is the most expected among your Fe type which tend to spit on the objective reality.

I generally and in the last message to you acted in the border of rules as criticized your concrete behavior and opinions. I relate to you in the borders of justice and reason, unlike you who act stupidly and morally inadequately.
I answered you there by the forum's theme and in the context of the discussion. It's you who started negatively to discuss me outside of the theme there, and on your lie I've replied appropriately.

It's you who 1st made direct personal insult against me, what was against the forum rules. In this aspect I then relate to you in not worse degree. You did unmotivated the personal harassment against me and then got what you deserved, not more. And now you are whining about what you do yourself to others or more correctly to say - about the lesser, as direct insulting which is common for you and your Fe types is often redundant.

P.S.
I saw not a single time when F types dislike logical critique, act morally inadequately, in return get the appropriate and similar style and then whine about this representing themselves as innocent victims. Common F types manipulations + the rejecting to think logically instead of emotional reactions where that would be more correct. Types with different T-F values get this with more probability.

You are lieing again. What should be natural for you. And is the most expected among your Fe type which tend to spit on the objective reality.

I generally and in the last message to you acted in the border of rules as criticized your concrete behavior and opinions. I relate to you in the borders of justice and reason, unlike you who act stupidly and morally inadequately.
I answered you there by the forum's theme and in the context of the discussion. It's you who started negatively to discuss me outside of the theme there, and on your lie I've replied appropriately.

It's you who 1st made direct personal insult against me, what was against the forum rules. In this aspect I then relate to you in not worse degree. You did unmotivated the personal harassment against me and then got what you deserved, not more. And now you are whining about what you do yourself to others or more correctly to say - about the lesser, as direct insulting which is common for you and your Fe types is often redundant.

P.S.
I saw not a single time when F types dislike logical critique, act morally inadequately, in return get the appropriate and similar style and then whine about this representing themselves as innocent victims. Common F types manipulations + the rejecting to think logically instead of emotional reactions where that would be more correct. Types with different T-F values get this with more probability.

Sol, you take your rudeness way too far. Just because someone is a type doesn't mean they don't use all other functions. You should know this. Now settle down and leave Delilah alone. She can type herself however she wants. It's a free world.

I think Sol is partly right in that he has the right to speak "objectively" of matters that are supposed to be objective. To not able to discuss it may indeed be censorship. We are objectively discussing the "subjects" that are actual people, which the matter of discussing it being ethical or not is another discussion that's besides the point.

The problem is, where is the objectivity in this? How are we supposed to decide what is objective or not? How do we escape from the fact that the "researchers" like Sol himself aren't biased by his own psychology, his own emotions, his own expectations, his own biases?

This problem can be solved if we assume that human beings are capable of rational thought, and therefore we can arrive at objectivity via rational arguments. The only way to know whether something is objective or not, is through rational arguments. We make the best case for deciding when something is objective, and when something is not.

The entire problem, then, is that the entire argument of what makes something objective or not, is missing. Without rational arguments, they're arbitrary subjective opinions.

So how do we know when something is objective? That can be only created by rational arguments.

@vesstheastralsilky
In that message you've said that do not want to hear opinions of others about types of people near you. So you do not seek the truth about their types. While you are on the typology forum and lie to yourself that has an interest in the truth about types. If you lie even to yourself, then it's doubtful your opinions are meaningful for others.

@vesstheastralsilky
In that message you've said that do not want to hear opinions of others about types of people near you. So you do not seek the truth about their types. While you are on the typology forum and lie to yourself that has an interest in the truth about types. If you lie even to yourself, then it's doubtful your opinions are meaningful for others.

I don't know how you started on this creative "lying" kick but you can stop taking your issues out on other forum members. Of course I am serious about the truth of types. Why else would I be here?

I don't know how you started on this creative "lying" kick but you can stop taking your issues out on other forum members. Of course I am serious about the truth of types. Why else would I be here?

Just imagine that you are talking to some cult preacher about One True Way To Type with all the shady robes and everything while reading his posts, as that's honestly how he comes off to me. That's the level to take him seriously, though that whole "you sinners who does not know The Way" thing honestly is something to get under check, including the name calling.

To me respecting someone’s wishes is the bottom line. You do not drag it out (whatever conflict or conversation you are having) if the other person clearly doesn’t wish to be a part of it. Specially when it comes to types and self-types, you do not disrespectfully keep publicly typing them, insulting their wishes and not giving basic respect to them as a human being. I have seen it happen more than I would like.

Yea god forbid to get typed in a "your typing of forum members" thread on a socionics forum.

How do we claim a theory to be objective? According to the Cambridge dictionary, something that is objective is "based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings". Then the question becomes, what is a fact? Consulting the same dictionary once again, we have that a fact is something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. Proof of a statement can come from two places: a logical argument built upon firm axioms or empirical, reproducible testing that controls for alternative possibilities. Socionics does neither of these. Firstly, there are multiple bases - model A, model G, Reinin, etc. Secondly, the means of typing is not settled - should we type via IR, IE, VI, high level descriptions, profiles...? Thirdly, the theory is not derived from an empirical model of facts but rather the theory itself is constructed from (inconsistent) principles, meaning that any empirical evidence in support of it would be as good as confirmation bias. Fourthly, any rigour being developed in the theory would be futile since the theory is already so detailed; hence, should we try to create a logically consistent model, we would have to break a number of the systems already put in place such as the subtype system or the descriptions of the functions, not that these are firm to begin with. Fifthly, a theory is only as useful as the people who use it. Thus, even if the model were completely logically consistent, there would still be an interpretation of the system for each person who used it, rendering the system useless for precise modelling.

Because of all this, the only use that socionics has is as a database of patterns and trends that people have observed. They are high-level enough to where general archetypes of thought categorization exist but also not so general so as to be personally useless in developing skills you are not good at. Fighting about who is what type is pointless since each person has an interpretation of the system anyway. And unless it strays so radically far from the norm, no one can say it's incorrect since the foundation is shaky nevertheless. I would like to say that there is a "correct" way of viewing the system, but I can't. What I can say, however, is that if we can all come to a consensus with our different interpretations, then we all gain something both in socionics and in personal understanding of other people. That's the only useful thing about socionics.

How do we claim a theory to be objective? According to the Cambridge dictionary, something that is objective is "based on real facts and not influenced by personal beliefs or feelings". Then the question becomes, what is a fact? Consulting the same dictionary once again, we have that a fact is something that is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information. Proof of a statement can come from two places: a logical argument built upon firm axioms or empirical, reproducible testing that controls for alternative possibilities. Socionics does neither of these. Firstly, there are multiple bases - model A, model G, Reinin, etc. Secondly, the means of typing is not settled - should we type via IR, IE, VI, high level descriptions, profiles...? Thirdly, the theory is not derived from an empirical model of facts but rather the theory itself is constructed from (inconsistent) principles, meaning that any empirical evidence in support of it would be as good as confirmation bias. Fourthly, any rigour being developed in the theory would be futile since the theory is already so detailed; hence, should we try to create a logically consistent model, we would have to break a number of the systems already put in place such as the subtype system or the descriptions of the functions, not that these are firm to begin with. Fifthly, a theory is only as useful as the people who use it. Thus, even if the model were completely logically consistent, there would still be an interpretation of the system for each person who used it, rendering the system useless for precise modelling.

Because of all this, the only use that socionics has is as a database of patterns and trends that people have observed. They are high-level enough to where general archetypes of thought categorization exist but also not so general so as to be personally useless in developing skills you are not good at. Fighting about who is what type is pointless since each person has an interpretation of the system anyway. And unless it strays so radically far from the norm, no one can say it's incorrect since the foundation is shaky nevertheless. I would like to say that there is a "correct" way of viewing the system, but I can't. What I can say, however, is that if we can all come to a consensus with our different interpretations, then we all gain something both in socionics and in personal understanding of other people. That's the only useful thing about socionics.

That's just my two cents. Feel free to disagree.

The phenomenon of types creates so much redundancy that it is possible to learn to see the types, functions etc. There are inner, psychological objects, that are not just a matter of opinion. But it takes time and yes it is challenging.

Kate Bush/10, my love for you has skyrocketed thanks to that profile picture.

Stop all this arguing and validate me x2

4w3 7w6 9w1 so/sx

"You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity. Indeed that's what we provide in our own modest, humble, insignificant... oh, fuck it."

The phenomenon of types creates so much redundancy that it is possible to learn to see the types, functions etc. There are inner, psychological objects, that are not just a matter of opinion. But it takes time and yes it is challenging.

First, the very fact that there is so much redundancy would lead to the system being inconsistent since the redundant material is established theory. Hence, to cut through it would be to deny aspects of the theory that are already created while simultaneously keeping some aspects based on what you "feel" is correct. Second, even if there are inner psychological objects, who says that they can be modelled by socionics? I won't disagree that it takes and and is challenging to understand people and how they function, but to use that as a justification for an inconsistent theory is equivalent to justifying all of a god's actions because they're "mysterious" and "difficult to understand". If even those who are experts can't agree with established theories, then the theory isn't challenging, it's wrong. Patterns and trends are all that can remain.

First, the very fact that there is so much redundancy would lead to the system being inconsistent since the redundant material is established theory. Hence, to cut through it would be to deny aspects of the theory that are already created while simultaneously keeping some aspects based on what you "feel" is correct. Second, even if there are inner psychological objects, who says that they can be modelled by socionics? I won't disagree that it takes and and is challenging to understand people and how they function, but to use that as a justification for an inconsistent theory is equivalent to justifying all of a god's actions because they're "mysterious" and "difficult to understand". If even those who are experts can't agree with established theories, then the theory isn't challenging, it's wrong. Patterns and trends are all that can remain.

Well I simply meant that things can be checked in many ways. When you learn socionics you might have problems typing yourself by functions alone, but you can also check it by the relationships. You can also check things by how you react to certain functions. It really is a matter of observing this for some years and working and dating alot to really expose yourself to it.

No-one says that inner psychological things can be modelled by socionics. It is simply a fact that can be checked.

We rely on psychological observation all the time in everyday life. Some people are better at this than others. If the psyche has regular cognitive patterns that form types, it would make sense that these were discovered at some point by observant people. And what then? Reject it, because it can't be tested in laboratory, or look for yourself and try to see it.

If you only had Jung, then I could agree on the skepticism, but socionics really gives you ways to test this.

First, the very fact that there is so much redundancy would lead to the system being inconsistent since the redundant material is established theory. Hence, to cut through it would be to deny aspects of the theory that are already created while simultaneously keeping some aspects based on what you "feel" is correct. Second, even if there are inner psychological objects, who says that they can be modelled by socionics? I won't disagree that it takes and and is challenging to understand people and how they function, but to use that as a justification for an inconsistent theory is equivalent to justifying all of a god's actions because they're "mysterious" and "difficult to understand". If even those who are experts can't agree with established theories, then the theory isn't challenging, it's wrong. Patterns and trends are all that can remain.

Simpler broader traits of sociotypes should have a higher priority on forum typings so that I dunno, people can actually discuss and argue the basics first before throwing out random ass traits that are far more detailed and unused than most people are capable of discussing. There's no point in arguing about types unless you start with dichotomies like I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J. Though if you use visual identification then it's more difficult to talk about lol, so just maybe it would be good to have a separate VI (even if it your official type for the person) type from the basic socionics dichotomy-based type.

Simpler broader traits of sociotypes should have a higher priority on forum typings so that I dunno, people can actually discuss and argue the basics first before throwing out random ass traits that are far more detailed and unused than most people are capable of discussing. There's no point in arguing about types unless you start with dichotomies like I/E, N/S, T/F, P/J. Though if you use visual identification then it's more difficult to talk about lol, so just maybe it would be good to have a separate VI (even if it your official type for the person) type from the basic socionics dichotomy-based type.

Part of the issue is that there isn't a clearly delineated purpose of socionics on this forum. Is it meant to be a personality test? A method to determine one's cognition? The connection between behavioural traits and visual identification? It tries to do all three and more yet fails (imo) because the subsystems conflicts with one another and the underlying purpose of the theory is gone.

Personally, I think that socionics should be about two things: cognition and intertype relations. We define a system of 16 archetypes with particular cognitive preferences and resulting cognitive styles. We then consider, from a purely cognitive perspective, how types would interact based on those preferences. High level behaviours get in the way because of emergent behaviour. I think this should be it's purpose because personality-wise, big 5 is already the standard model. Moreover, it would allow a stronger foundation since Jung's original thoughts were cognitive in nature coupled with some behavioural consequences.

The other option would be for socionics to be a higher level personality system like MBTI, but its depth would be lost, which would be unfortunate, even if it's not scientifically substantiated.

EDIT: I should note that by "interact" I mean areas where types would clash and construct from a cognitive perspective. For example, Se bases have Ni DS, so when speaking to an Ni type they may get what they want/need. Rather than a behavioural interaction.

Part of the issue is that there isn't a clearly delineated purpose of socionics on this forum. Is it meant to be a personality test? A method to determine one's cognition? The connection between behavioural traits and visual identification? It tries to do all three and more yet fails (imo) because

Because the understanding of the typology and related begins with the correct understanding of own type, which is LII, but not ILI like you think. Without this you see regular bs and then seek for bs rationalizations.

@Sol if you think you're some authority on typology, then why have you not got your type displayed on your profile? What purpose does hiding it serve?

"My love for Linton is like the foliage in the woods: time will change it, I'm well aware, as winter changes the trees. My love for Heathcliff resembles the eternal rocks beneath: a source of little visible delight, but necessary. Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind"

"Catherine Earnshaw, may you not rest as long as I am living; you said I killed you—haunt me, then!... Be with me always—take any form—drive me mad! only do not leave me in this abyss, where I cannot find you!"

If Socionics was a cult, we wouldn't be so skilled at making valid-sounding arguments showing how others act like fanatics. Those who say that Socionics teaches nothing but falsehood also cannot explain how its adherents always show great ingenuity at managing to be unpalatable to all whenever they converse. Socionics is not a cult.

Plenty of petty squabbling and invalidating of others can happen within cults. However, even if Socionics were a full-fledged cult, it would have to be a low-stakes cult, as I’ve pointed out before. No one is asking us to pay for things, to turn against our families, to work for little to no money, to recruit new believers, and the like.

We have no charismatic leader, living or dead. We’re not being exploited. Brainwashed—I give you that one.

We have no charismatic leader, living or dead. We’re not being exploited. Brainwashed—I give you that one.

I'm sorry to say this (although I feel nobody should be above criticism): I know I speak for many dozens of people when I say that I find such remarks deeply insulting to the memory of Aušra Augustinavičiūtėčiūtėčiūtėčiūtė, whose name is never far from our lips.

How dare you insult our leader! Next you'll be saying her teachings were in error!

"You see, there are still faint glimmers of civilization left in this barbaric slaughterhouse that was once known as humanity. Indeed that's what we provide in our own modest, humble, insignificant... oh, fuck it."

I think i might be SLI. The problem is i'm very good at rationalizing almost every perspective and to create groundworks for every socionics position in relation to the IE/IR. I 'play' certain types to see how they fit and discover modes of thinking that correspond with types. I must have RP'ed almost every type in the socion by now